We'll be updating the privacy policy to reflect the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation.

Please login or register to view links

You may also see a cookie notice.

As a registered member, you will receive emails from us pertaining to the community and the services the community provides. Registering as a member means that you give us your consent to send these emails to you.

If you don't want to receive these emails, use this link to unsubscribe:

Please login or register to view links (the checkbox next to "receive site mailings")

If you unsubscribe, you won't receive forum notices of contests, special offers, new forum features, and the like.

If you subscribe to message threads in forums, you my choose to automatically receive email notifications when other members reply. You can subscribe or unsubscribe to these notifications by using the "Watch/unwatch thread" feature which is visible at the top of every thread.

To list all the threads you are watching, visit your preferences via this link: Please login or register to view links

If you choose not to receive email notifications of replies, you won't be getting the full benefit of being a forum member and participating in the community.

Looking at what other companies are doing, it appears that they tell how your data will be used on a separate section and allow you to unsubscribe. If you don't hit unsubscribe you are allowed continue to access content.

Looking at what other companies are doing, it appears that they tell how your data will be used on a separate section and allow you to unsubscribe. If you don't hit unsubscribe you are allowed continue to access content.

Click to expand...

Robert,
To be compliant I believe that you need a script that on user first entry to website that you send them to a page that shows the user data policy.
You then click Agree which updates the script so it doesnt run again for that user. Alternatively you click Unsubscribe which removes all user data from others sight or sharing.

Strictly speaking (because it processes the personal data of living EU citizens) the website should have a GDPR compliant Data Notice Policy that must be communicated to individuals before their personal data is captured. Personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.

Where you seek to to rely on the consent of the individual (opt-in) as the justification for processing that individual's personal data – such consent must be specific, informed and unambiguous. It cannot be inferred from silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity. Consent, when given, can be withdrawn at any time.

Strictly speaking (because it processes the personal data of living EU citizens) the website should have a GDPR compliant Data Notice Policy that must be communicated to individuals before their personal data is captured. Personal data is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.

Where you seek to to rely on the consent of the individual (opt-in) as the justification for processing that individual's personal data – such consent must be specific, informed and unambiguous. It cannot be inferred from silence, pre-ticked boxes or inactivity. Consent, when given, can be withdrawn at any time.

Click to expand...

We have had many emails about this lately (in the uk) from companies who have us on their email lists. Some have done it properly as you describe, and want a positive response. But its amazing how many say that simply not responding implies consent, including one of the UKs biggest Supermarkets Tesco. It will be interesting to see how many are caught and have to re do it.

In my opinion the new EU rules have nothing much to do with giving people more say over what and where their info is used. It's more a way of restricting some people from going about their business. While it sounds all very cosy for the ordinary man , woman and child in the street, it isn't going to be that cosy for those of us taking images of strangers without getting their permission first (is candid photography under threat?). Now, I may be reading too much into these rules but it seems to me that they are restricting publication of unsolicited images (taken without prior consent). Of course, it will be a nightmare to police these rules and is a fine example of another impractical law coming from the EU elite who sit around all day long thinking them up. But assuming someone spots their image being seen on websites like this, the photographer could end up explaining themselves in a court of law. It is unlikely that this would happen of course and is the worst scenario. However, what these new rules will do is to make those wishing to give street photographers a try, uncertain of their position and more wary of doing so. My advice would be to still give it a go regardless of these new, unworkable rules. It will be more of a challenge to remain invisible. It will certainly calm down Bruce Gilden's style of street photographer for sure. Or will it?

Interesting article on the subject here: Please login or register to view links

Can you explain what parts of the legislation affect such photography? It surely would only apply if you identified people who are in the photo by name etc.
Laws about photography 'in a public place' differ from one country to another. In the UK you are free to take and publish photos in a 'public place' but even when I was involved professionaly on the fringes of press photography over 40 years ago we had to get permission from subjects before identifying them.

In my opinion the new EU rules have nothing much to do with giving people more say over what and where their info is used. It's more a way of restricting some people from going about their business. While it sounds all very cosy for the ordinary man , woman and child in the street, it isn't going to be that cosy for those of us taking images of strangers without getting their permission first (is candid photography under threat?). Now, I may be reading too much into these rules but it seems to me that they are restricting publication of unsolicited images (taken without prior consent). Of course, it will be a nightmare to police these rules and is a fine example of another impractical law coming from the EU elite who sit around all day long thinking them up. But assuming someone spots their image being seen on websites like this, the photographer could end up explaining themselves in a court of law. It is unlikely that this would happen of course and is the worst scenario. However, what these new rules will do is to make those wishing to give street photographers a try, uncertain of their position and more wary of doing so. My advice would be to still give it a go regardless of these new, unworkable rules. It will be more of a challenge to remain invisible. It will certainly calm down Bruce Gilden's style of street photographer for sure. Or will it?

Interesting article on the subject here: Please login or register to view links

Click to expand...

My opinion is quite different to yours, but hey ho that's what life is all about.

Better to seek forgiveness than obtain permission does often seem the best course of action
But you do have to accept the consequences if your actions were less than correct

My opinion is quite different to yours, but hey ho that's what life is all about.

Better to seek forgiveness than obtain permission does often seem the best course of action
But you do have to accept the consequences if your actions were less than correct

Click to expand...

You can read the new rules concerning street photography data protection here, gyoung: Please login or register to view links We may well be okay and no problems found, but on the other hand rules develop over time. I will always take an image down if the person involved spots it and asks me to. So I guess no damage done.

Joomla is actively working on a fix, but what a major pain in the backside this has caused, especially for a place like mine that does not require any real personal info, you can be as fake as you like, just don't be a jerk. That's my rule. As far as cookies go, switch your browser to private surfing and discard everything when the session ends! How about a little personal responsibility from everyone? I understand why they made this law, but this is really mucking up the workings for a lot of little guys.

You can read the new rules concerning street photography data protection here, gyoung: Please login or register to view links We may well be okay and no problems found, but on the other hand rules develop over time. I will always take an image down if the person involved spots it and asks me to. So I guess no damage done.

Click to expand...

I believe that the link is from the authorities in Malta. It is therefore not necessarily relevant elsewhere.

it isn't going to be that cosy for those of us taking images of strangers without getting their permission first (is candid photography under threat?). Now, I may be reading too much into these rules but it seems to me that they are restricting publication of unsolicited images (taken without prior consent)

Click to expand...

That’s nothing new. Publishing images of people without their prior written permission was and is in most cases a violation of people’s rights in their image. Any person you publish a photo of without their permission can take you to court. I personally think that’s the way it should be, too.

Publishing images of people without their prior written permission was and is in most cases a violation of people’s rights in their image. Any person you publish a photo of without their permission can take you to court.

Click to expand...

In many countries, including the UK and the USA, this is incorrect.

Well, of course anyone can take anyone to court for anything, but that does not mean they have a valid case.

@AnthonyM The US are not part of the EU and are thus irrelevant. In the UK it’s not as straightforward as you seem to believe, but the UK is about to brexit and I don’t know if these new regulations apply. However, I personally don’t care, because I feel publishing photographs of people without their consent is but testimony of a lack of manners.

Most of my photography is people photography. I never hide my camera or the fact I take a picture. Never the less, people don’t usually realise it’s them who are being photographed. I always approach my subjects after the shot if it is at all possible. I‘ve never had a bad experience except once, when a mauretanian police officer almost confiscated my Leica and caused a delay of several hours. However, it is illegal to photograph the police in most African countries and I learned from this incident to always ask before and promise to send them prints. They all have camera phones these days but I always have an A3 example print of an African police officer posing with his AK. Basically none of them can resist to get such a status symbol they otherwise can’t afford and happily pose for a small shooting, thereby providing plenty of opportunity to catch them off guard and get the shot I want in the process. That’s give and take, as opposed to stealing.

People photography has changed with digital cameras and the internet. As photographers we should be aware of the harm we can inflict on people. I can often convince hesitant people by shooting my film Leica and by explaining that I only exhibit prints in galleries and never publish actual work in the internet.

Publishing images of people without their prior written permission was and is in most cases a violation of people’s rights in their image. Any person you publish a photo of without their permission can take you to court.

Click to expand...

Absolutely 100% incorrect in Australia.
If a person is in a public place (street, beach, etc.) or the photographer is standing in public space when the photo was taken there is nothing the subject of the photo can do about it as there is no presumption of a right to privacy in public in Australian law. Theoretically I can stand on the street and take photos of people inside their houses through uncovered windows if I want although I am not about to become a test case or a hospital case to try it.

Absolutely 100% incorrect in Australia.
If a person is in a public place (street, beach, etc.) or the photographer is standing in public space when the photo was taken there is nothing the subject of the photo can do about it as there is no presumption of a right to privacy in public in Australian law. Theoretically I can stand on the street and take photos of people inside their houses through uncovered windows if I want although I am not about to become a test case or a hospital case to try it.

Click to expand...

EU legislation does not apply to Australia. The point was that someone was worried the new EU data protection regulations would require them to ask people for permission to publish their image. That’s nothing new because most European countries already protect people’s privacy and/or ownership in any image taken of them, even in public places (with certain exceptions, such as if the public interest in a particular photograph is more important, etc). What’s new is that providers of publishing platforms are now held responsible for their content to some degree.

Besides, shooting people in their homes from the street is rather tasteless and creepy, is it not?

Edit: You may of course photograph almost anything and anyone everywhere for your own pleasure without asking for permission, just as long as you don’t publish the pictures.